Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key legal precedents that shaped its reasoning:

• O'Doherty v. Minister for Health [2022] IESC 32: This Supreme Court case established that the threshold for judicial review applications is based solely on arguability, not on a broader measure of the case's likelihood of success.
• Suarez v. Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman [2022] IEHC 46: Discussed the limitations of statutory appeals and affirmed that judicial review is the appropriate remedy for challenging the Ombudsman's decision to discontinue an investigation.
• Heaney v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IECA 123: Confirmed that the time limit for judicial review begins from the date of the impugned decision and that correspondence after the decision does not reset this clock.
• Arthropharm (Europe) Ltd v. Health Products Regulatory Authority [2022] IECA 109: Reinforced that reiterating a previous decision does not constitute a new decision for the purposes of resetting time limits.
• M. O'S. v. Residential Institutions Redress Board [2018] IESC 61: Highlighted the discretionary nature of extending time limits for judicial review, emphasizing that good and sufficient reasons must be provided.

The court meticulously analyzed these precedents to determine the applicability of the extension of time and the arguability of the applicant's grounds.

Legal Reasoning

The court first assessed whether the application for judicial review was filed within the prescribed three-month period from the decision date (13 December 2021). It concluded that the application was indeed late by fourteen days, as it was filed on 28 March 2022 instead of by 14 March 2022.

However, the court then evaluated whether the criteria for an extension of time were met. Under Order 84, rule 21, an extension can be granted if the delay was due to reasons beyond the applicant's control and if granting the extension serves the interests of justice. The applicant provided evidence of an error by the stamping office and pandemic-induced court listing restrictions, both of which were deemed outside his control. Additionally, the delay was short relative to the three-month limit and did not prejudice the respondents.

Furthermore, considering the significance of the legal questions raised—particularly the Ombudsman's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of discontinuing an investigation—the court found that extending the time would benefit the broader public interest.

Impact

This judgment underscores the High Court's willingness to exercise discretion in granting extensions of time for judicial reviews, especially when genuine impediments are demonstrated. It emphasizes that procedural errors or administrative delays, when outside an applicant's control, do not necessarily preclude timely legal challenges. Moreover, by allowing the judicial review to proceed, the court opens the door for a thorough examination of the Ombudsman’s decision-making processes, potentially influencing future administrative practices and ensuring greater accountability.